DCS: Spitfire Mk LF IXc Discussion

[gavagai]

Do you? I had the idea from my aerobatic years after initial dive your acceleration depends mostly in gravity, so as we all know 1Kg or 1Ton accelerates the same due to gravity. Then reaching terminal speed of course engine power matters again. Am I wrong?

 

S!

 

That is true, but in a dive friction is working against gravity, and I think these WW2 birds were going much faster than when you do aerobatics. We never went above 200mph in my ride in the Extra 300. At 400mph the force of friction has increased exponentially.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

That is true, but in a dive friction is working against gravity, and I think these WW2 birds were going much faster than when you do aerobatics. We never went above 200mph in my ride in the Extra 300. At 400mph the force of friction has increased exponentially.

Well yeah, friction is there and drag increases exponentially with velocity. But my aerobatics were mostly formation flight and you can experiment that for instance while a formation loop, if you don't reach loop top together with the leader (and I mean 5 meters away instead of 2) you couldn't reach him the whole manoeuvre even pulling full throttle until the loop ends. That's the gravity action I mean we usually don't realize, but of course that's before reaching terminal velocity or at least really high ones when you need power in order to keep accelerating. So still I think a full fuel tank doesn't help diving, at least not that much.

 

S!

[otto]

People need to wait and see how the spit will handle.In il2 46 spitfire 9 had every advantage theoretically over 109G6. But the spit was twitchier on the vertical and that made it harder to shoot .

 

Also if it has it's controls delayed like the 109 had.It's hard to build a muscle memory around that.So that would matter more in my book than 25lbs boost. It only works for 5 minutes AFAIk and if someone booms you by surprise(which is how booming mostly works :) ) you'll probably have it off anyway.

[Nerd1000]

People need to wait and see how the spit will handle.In il2 46 spitfire 9 had every advantage theoretically over 109G6. But the spit was twitchier on the vertical and that made it harder to shoot .

 

Also if it has it's controls delayed like the 109 had.It's hard to build a muscle memory around that.So that would matter more in my book than 25lbs boost. It only works for 5 minutes AFAIk and if someone booms you by surprise(which is how booming mostly works :) ) you'll probably have it off anyway.

25lbs can be used for as long as the pilot desires, but the longer it is used the higher the chance of overheating and/or engine failure (the Merlin 66 was designed to withstand making 1710hp, not 2000hp!). To conserve the lifespan of the engine, pilots were instructed to only use it for 5mins at a time.

 

It's a similar story with the Bf109 K-4 and Fw190D-9's water methanol injection AFAIK. The manual says 5 or 10 minutes followed by some cooldown period (I'm sure Kurfurst knows the exact limit for each engine configuration), but there is no physical barrier to using MW50 injection continuously until the MW50 tank is empty- they just discourage this to avoid unduly wearing out the engine.

[Friedrich-4B]

Some sources say 485 had their own installation of .50s with Hispanos retained on the inner cannon bays. They got some Mk IXe in early May (actually even end of April eg ML407 Grace Spitfire) from CB and converted apparantly some their own without mod 1029 of Supermarine. There is not much data about this though, evidence is only brought up at Spitfiresite and some ww2 forum. So I am not sure its true, but there were some pictures shown of Spits with .50s in the outer bay.

 

1 June 44 Order of battle of 2nd TAF shows 222 and 485 equipped with. 50 cals. Some of the former 485 sqd aircraft went to 349 sqd.

 

Having looked through 485(NZ) Sqn's ORBs, I can't find anything to confirm that 485 carried out their own conversions, without Supermarine's Mod.1029. In addition, the article referred to on the Spitfire Site gives no references. I'll keep digging, when I have some spare time, but, for now this looks like it's a myth.

 

Speaking of myths...

 

....Griffon Spits are even less of a practical concern, since the XII only amounted to 100, and half of these were modified from Vs the other half from VII/VIIIs, so they would double in charts...

What is a comparison problem now that we are getting into the details is that the 109 chart is only for "Neubau", i.e. new production 109s that were produced form scratch, and the modificiations, rebuilds are not present (since they are not present in Lieferplan either), while the Spit chart also shows the new production planes and those converted from older ones (primarly from Mark Vs). One of the pitfalls is that this mostly effect G-6s subtypes in early 1944 like G-6s with AS engines and/or MW boost, effectively G-14/AS and G-14 - early production and unit returns simply do not show this since the designation was not yet born and they were all lumped into the same category- Technically this was correct since most of the early ones were rebuild or modifications, for example in May 1944 250 methanol modiciations were ordered for G-6s, until they were re-named G-14-something in July 1944 by which time they received the modifications already in the production line.

 

What Kurfrust has failed completely to understand, is that Spitfire XIIs and early F. Mk IXs were not ex-Spitfire VIIIs or VCs that had had their engines taken out and replaced with Griffons/Merlin 61s; they were new-build aircraft, and shown as such in serial number lists and more importantly on their Aircraft Movement cards (in the same way as 109G-6s were renamed G-14s).

[Ala13_ManOWar]

It's a similar story with the Bf109 K-4 and Fw190D-9's water methanol injection AFAIK. The manual says 5 or 10 minutes followed by some cooldown period (I'm sure Kurfurst knows the exact limit for each engine configuration), but there is no physical barrier to using MW50 injection continuously until the MW50 tank is empty- they just discourage this to avoid unduly wearing out the engine.

Same for P-51, 3000rpm can be maintained for ever as long as you can keep engine cool, overheat is what kills your engine. But we all know while in combat it's really hard, almost impossible to keep you engine cool.

 

 

About MW50, then there is Erich Brunotte telling he never went more than 1.2 Ata in 109…

 

S!

[IIIJG52_Otto_]

 

About MW50, then there is Erich Brunotte telling he never went more than 1.2 Ata in 109…

 

S!

 

That's not entirely true, Erich Brunotte says that they used between 0.9 and 1.2ATA in cotinous mode, but full throttle was used in combat, they pushed the throttle and pulled it back, push and pull all the time.

Watch the video again minute 12:11

 

Heinz Knoke in his book "I Flew for the Führer" he says that he escaped with 109 G6 (equiped with MW-50) from P-51 and P-47 with full throttle, spiral steep climb, and neither allied fighters could follow him in this maneuver.

 

Full throttle was used but in short period of time..

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Brunotte tells at some point in one of the interviews he never went more than 1.2, even in combat, of course out of taking off. But he flew RL isn't it?

 

S!

[IIIJG52_Otto_]

Brunotte tells at some point in one of the interviews he never went more than 1.2, even in combat, of course out of taking off. But he flew RL isn't it?

 

S!

That not true ,.. there is only ONE Erich Brunotte interview published, ..

Watch the video again minute 12:11

:music_whistling:

 

If there is another interview to Mr.Brunotte , please, share the link here..

Edited May 8, 2016 by III/JG52_Otto_+

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I think there was a couple at least. Watch them yourself ;) .

 

S!

[NineLine]

Remember, topic is DCS Spitfire IX.

[Nerd1000]

Same for P-51, 3000rpm can be maintained for ever as long as you can keep engine cool, overheat is what kills your engine. But we all know while in combat it's really hard, almost impossible to keep you engine cool.

 

 

About MW50, then there is Erich Brunotte telling he never went more than 1.2 Ata in 109…

 

S!

The spitfire ED is making uses the merlin 66 with 18 lbs of boost, so its behaviour in terms of WEP should be almost identical to the Mustang.

 

The spit does have a different radiator installation though. Would be nice to find out how the two differed in cooling performance in a dogfight.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Remember, topic is DCS Spitfire IX.

Lest we forget :thumbup:.

 

 

The spitfire ED is making uses the merlin 66 with 18 lbs of boost, so its behaviour in terms of WEP should be almost identical to the Mustang.

 

The spit does have a different radiator installation though. Would be nice to find out how the two differed in cooling performance in a dogfight.

Yeah, definitely, I'm eager to see how they perform compared to each other. And oddly here Spit Rolls is the father and Stang Packard the son so we would see who has a better endurance.

 

S!

[Talisman_VR]

The italic part is very right. 2nd TAF used 150 grade starting early 45.

 

Well then please feel free to show me documents stating exactly that (bold part), or show me single squadron documents that prove the use of more than the 16 (evaluation) squadrons in ADGB.

 

Development of the Rolls-Royce Merlin from 1939 to 1945

 

A Lecture Delivered by Mr. A. C. Lovesey to the de Havilland Aircraft Company Technical Department in November, 1945.

 

[ame]http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-lovesey.pdf[/ame]

 

Page 223 says:

 

"The first operational use of this fuel was against the flying bombs in the middle of 1944. Subsequently the whole of A.D.G.B. Was put on this fuel. Later it was used by the Second Tactical Air Force during and after the invasion of the Continent."

 

This is evidence to show that the whole of Air Defence Great Britain was using 150 grade fuel, including all its Spitfire Mk IX squadrons, before D-Day.

The Normandy map is due to cover the South of England and the English Channel, as well as France.

A.D.G.B took part in D-Day operations and also flew sorties on the continent.

2nd TAF used 150 grade fuel, including in its Spitfire Mk IX squadrons.

Therefore, I submit that a 25lbs boost Spit Mk IX would not be out of place on the upcoming DCS Normandy Map.

Whether or not we eventually get a 25lbs Spit Mk IX is in the hands of the model developers, but I believe that there is clearly enough evidence to show that it would not be out of place for the WWII project.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[Krupi]

Nice find :thumbup:

 

I doubt we will get it at least at the start or the foreseeable future, just look at the P-51 there is overwhelming evidence for the 75" HG Manifold pressure and that hasn't been updated.

 

We just have to sit tight and wait for the XIVe to arrive if you want a allied aircraft comparable to the K4

Edited May 10, 2016 by Krupi

[Rangi]

And so the circle is complete and the cycle can continue.:music_whistling:

[rel4y]

No reason. The paper was written by a journalist and is based on a lecture. There simply is no primary data or it would have been somewhere in the national archives.

 

Irrespective the fact Id love to see a 25 boost Spit, it would be a beast!

Edited May 10, 2016 by rel4y

[Krupi]

That is the amusing things rel4y, it would not be a 'beast' that is the XIV. 25lb doesn't boost the speed of the IX that much, the K4 would still have it's speed advantage.

 

25lb wouldn't make the aircraft a UFO.

[rel4y]

Its all about acceleration, baby! Nothing turns tighter than a spit and with 25 psi, climbrate and acceleration are insane. With level speed all he can do is run for his life. In a dogfght you have all the advantages.

Edited May 10, 2016 by rel4y

[Talisman_VR]

No reason. The paper was written by a journalist and is based on a lecture. There simply is no primary data or it would have been somewhere in the national archives.

 

Irrespective the fact Id love to see a 25 boost Spit, it would be a beast!

 

What made you say he is a journalist?

You might like to read this to see who he was:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Lovesey

 

Only Rolls-Royce 'Chief Engineer (Aircraft Engines)' then deputy director of engineering and a member of the Aero Engine Division board of directors before he retired in 1964.

 

Not sure why you might think a journalist would give a lecture on this subject, but hay-ho.

This is his lecture that was then printed in the aviation journal.

 

Also, your may be interested in the extract below from:

http://www.team.net/html/fot/1999-12/msg00015.html

 

"A.C. 'Cyril' Lovesey' became Chief Experimental Engineer after the death of

Mr Ellor.

in 1940. It is generally accepted in the world of engineering that Cyril

Lovesey was the finest development engineer in the world throughout his

working life - (I believe his skill, by example, has never been

superceded). He was a great character, and together with a first class

Science Degree, he was qualified in design and had a 'seat of the pants'

feel for engineering excellence - like Sir Henry Royce. An example of Mr

Lovesey's job on the Merlin engine was the fact that he was responsible for

the mechanical integrity of the engine throughout it's many modifications

and the doubling of its power from the start to the finish of the war. One

story I remember of him was when several engineers from outside Rolls

(during the war engineers often met from all over England to 'pool'

knowledge and ideas) became 'turbo' experts. It came to the point that many

engineers were insisting on a 'turbocharged' Merlin engine to the point

that government 'pressure' was being leveled at Rolls to do something about

it. The Rolls engineers (who had ignored directives) got thoroughly pissed

of with the suggestion, because they thought, quite rightly as it turned

out, that the 'smart arses' had not done their homework. It finally got to

the point (by shear devilment of Earnest Hives the head of the company)

that Cyril Lovesey was sent to give a talk on the 'turbo' thing to about

three dozen 'wizz kids' who were insisting on the 'Merlin turbo.' - Mr

Lovesey, after making sure everyone was comfortable said words to the

effect-"

 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[gavagai]

Nothing turns tighter than a spit and with 25 psi

 

 

;)

[MiloMorai]

No reason. The paper was written by a journalist and is based on a lecture. There simply is no primary data or it would have been somewhere in the national archives.

 

The 7,175,000 Imp gal that was consumed in 1945 in NW Europe by what?

[Nerd1000]

That is the amusing things rel4y, it would not be a 'beast' that is the XIV. 25lb doesn't boost the speed of the IX that much, the K4 would still have it's speed advantage.

 

25lb wouldn't make the aircraft a UFO.

 

That isn't the full story. +25lbs boost significantly enhances performance below the original full throttle height but has little effect above the original FTH. This is why the +25lbs Spitfire's listed top speed isn't much higher than that of the +18lbs version. Closer examination will reveal that the +25lbs plane is able to achieve its top speed at significantly lower altitudes, which closes the gap with the K-4 pretty nicely in a low level dogfight.

 

That said, the Mk IX is certainly no match for the K-4 at medium to high altitudes regardless of what fuel it is burning.

[rel4y]

What made you say he is a journalist?

You might like to read this to see who he was:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Lovesey

 

Thanks for lecturing me but I can google people myself. Now were does it say Alfred Cyril Lovesey is the author of the article? Looks to me like a write up of a journalist. It does say the article is based on one of his lectures in 11/45, the journal was published in 6/46.

 

As for jap turners, I think an Extra 300 can also turn tighter than a spit. Maybe I should have said europe WWII? :D Now please dont come up with biplanes that were involved in europe. I just wanted to praise the qualities of the spit.

 

The 7,175,000 Imp gal that was consumed in 1945 in NW Europe by what?

 

Got that from Mike Williams site? Because he calculated the "consumed quantities" from requirements set in 5/44. I wonder what kind of maths that is. So any data to back this up? Besides, how does the 150 grade fuel consumption of NW Europe prove the use of it by the whole of ADGB in 44? Sure 2nd TAF was flying on 150 grade in 45.. I just dont believe in the numbers, because US data shows production bottlenecks.

Edited May 11, 2016 by rel4y

[Krupi]

The British were also producing 150 grade IIRC

Edited May 11, 2016 by Krupi